Category: Covering the Supreme Court of India

‘When a woman is living with a man for years, there is no basis for repeated rape FIRs on the break of relationship’: Supreme Court

Posted on By Sabina Nafees Nafees

Commenting that where a woman is voluntarily living with and having a relationship with a man, and if the relationship is not going on now, she may commit rape on the same woman repeatedly (Section 376(2)(n) cannot be a ground for registering an FIR, the Supreme Court on Thursday granted ex-arrest bail to a person accused of rape on failure to fulfill the promise of marriage, in a relationship in which A child was also born.

The Court recorded the order, …

The complainant has voluntarily been with the appellant and had a relationship. Therefore, now if the relationship is not going on, it cannot be a ground to register an FIR for the offense under section 376(2)(n) IPC).”

Case comment, Covering the Supreme Court of India, Legal Updates, Rajasthan High Court

Defendants Who Have Not Filed Written Statements Can Be Permitted To Cross Examine Witnesses After Ex Parte Decree Is Set Aside: The Supreme Court.

Posted on By legalresearchanalyst2020

The Supreme Court observed that by overturning the ex­parte decree, the defendants can be allowed to be involved in the suit proceedings and cross-examine witnesses.

The defendants, in this case, were set ex parte by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also dismissed their application under Order IX Rule 13.

Civil, Covering the Supreme Court of India, Judgement, LRA Explains

Restriction on remarriage after divorce will be applicable only if the other party files an appeal during the limitation period: Supreme Court

Posted on By Sankalp Mirani

The Supreme Court has held that in order to enforce the ban on remarriage after divorce, as specified under section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it is not necessary that the other party before the High Court within the limitation period. Bring an appeal against the decree.

Covering the Supreme Court of India

Refusing to quash criminal proceedings, HC cannot issue directions for ‘no arrest’ or ‘no coercive action’ till final report is filed: Supreme Court reiterates

Posted on By Sabina Nafees Nafees

Refusing to quash criminal proceedings, HC cannot issue directions for ‘no arrest’ or ‘no coercive action’ till final report is filed: Supreme Court reiterates

The Supreme Court, while refusing to quash criminal proceedings, said the Supreme Court, while refusing to quash the criminal proceedings, cannot issue directions for “no arrest” or “no coercive action” till the final report is filed. A bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna observed that the Supreme Court rejected the practice of passing orders of “no arrest” or “no coercive action” when the petition to be dismissed was itself dismissed.

Covering the Supreme Court of India

173 CrPC – Magistrate should consider both preliminary final report and supplementary report before proceeding against accused: Supreme Court

Posted on By Sabina Nafees Nafees

The Supreme Court has observed that whether there is a ground to believe that the accused has committed the offense, the preliminary final report submitted under section 173(2) of CrPC and section 173(8) before deciding to a judicial magistrate ) should consider the supplementary reports (both supplementary reports). A bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Surya Kant made the observation while considering a criminal appeal against the Kerala High Court’s order dated March 3, 2021.

Covering the Supreme Court of India

Denial of pension to ad hoc employee after 30 years of service is unfair: Supreme Court

Posted on By Sabina Nafees Nafees

A bench of Justice MR Shah and Justice BV Nagarathna was considering an SLP opposing the Gujarat High Court order directing the state to pay pensionary benefits to the respondent who is more than 30 years. Retired after rendering service. The Bench, while dismissing the SLP of the State, held that taking 30 years of continuous service and thereafter arguing that an employee who has rendered 30 years of continuous service would not be eligible for a pension, is nothing but unreasonable.

Covering the Supreme Court of India

Section 138 NI Act – Prima Facie Indication That Complaint Is Filed By Authorized Person Of Company Sufficient For Magistrate To Take Cognisance: Supreme Court

Posted on By Sankalp Mirani

Proper authorization can be an issue for trial and complaints cannot be quashed on this ground under Section 482 CRPC, Court added. The Supreme Court observed that, in a cheque bounce case, when the complainant/payee is a company, an authorized employee can represent the company.

Covering the Supreme Court of India

Section 106, Evidence Act is not intended to absolve the prosecution from discharging its duty of conviction; Supreme Court.

Posted on By Sankalp Mirani

The Supreme Court, while acquitting the accused of murder, said that the object of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is not to absolve the prosecution from its duty to prove the guilt of the accused.
A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi observed that by invoking the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden cannot be shifted on the accused when the prosecution could not prove the substantive facts as against the accused. was alleged. ,

Covering the Supreme Court of India, current affairs

Terms and Conditions